The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(2) In light of the aforementioned facts, the lower court’s judgment is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the lower court, such as the confession of the Defendant, and the amount of damage, are relatively small. The circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted in the lower court are already determined by the lower court. There are many records of criminal punishment due to habitual larceny, etc. even before the instant case, the Defendant had been sentenced to punishment due to habitual larceny, etc., even before the instant case, and the Defendant repeated the same offense even during the period of repeated offense, even after having been sentenced to punishment due to habitual nighttime structures, larceny, etc., and the execution of the sentence was completed by the victim, even during the repeated offense period, and the victim did not receive a letter of suspicion from the victim.